比较 ChatGPT 和临床护士在气管切开护理问题上的表现:横断面研究

Tongyao Wang , Juan Mu , Jialing Chen , Chia-Chin Lin
{"title":"比较 ChatGPT 和临床护士在气管切开护理问题上的表现:横断面研究","authors":"Tongyao Wang ,&nbsp;Juan Mu ,&nbsp;Jialing Chen ,&nbsp;Chia-Chin Lin","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The release of ChatGPT for general use in 2023 by OpenAI has significantly expanded the possible applications of generative artificial intelligence in the healthcare sector, particularly in terms of information retrieval by patients, medical and nursing students, and healthcare personnel.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 to clinical nurses on answering questions about tracheostomy care, as well as to determine whether using different prompts to pre-define the scope of the ChatGPT affects the accuracy of their responses.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Cross-sectional study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>The data collected from the ChatGPT was collected using the ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 using access provided by the University of Hong Kong. The data from the clinical nurses working in mainland China was collected using the Qualtrics survey program.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>No participants were needed for collecting the ChatGPT responses. A total of 272 clinical nurses, with 98.5 % of them working in tertiary care hospitals in mainland China, were recruited using a snowball sampling approach.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>We used 43 tracheostomy care-related questions in a multiple-choice format to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, and clinical nurses. ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 were both queried three times with the same questions by different prompts: no prompt, patient-friendly prompt, and act-as-nurse prompt. All responses were independently graded by two qualified otorhinolaryngology nurses on a 3-point accuracy scale (correct, partially correct, and incorrect). The Chi-squared test and Fisher exact test with post-hoc Bonferroni adjustment were used to assess the differences in performance between the three groups, as well as the differences in accuracy between different prompts.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>ChatGPT-4.0 showed significantly higher accuracy, with 64.3 % of responses rated as ‘correct’, compared to 60.5 % in ChatGPT-3.5 and 36.7 % in clinical nurses (<em>X <sup>2</sup></em> = 74.192, <em>p</em> &lt; .001). Except for the ‘care for the tracheostomy stoma and surrounding skin’ domain (<em>X<sup>2</sup></em> = 6.227, <em>p</em> = .156), scores from ChatGPT-3.5 and -4.0 were significantly better than nurses’ on domains related to airway humidification, cuff management, tracheostomy tube care, suction techniques, and management of complications. Overall, ChatGPT-4.0 consistently performed well in all domains, achieving over 50 % accuracy in each domain. Alterations to the prompt had no impact on the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 or -4.0.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>ChatGPT may serve as a complementary medical information tool for patients and physicians to improve knowledge in tracheostomy care.</p></div><div><h3>Tweetable abstract</h3><p>ChatGPT-4.0 can answer tracheostomy care questions better than most clinical nurses. There is no reason nurses should not be using it.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34476,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X24000080/pdfft?md5=deec54a55b2e4390941888b959a5b0f5&pid=1-s2.0-S2666142X24000080-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing ChatGPT and clinical nurses’ performances on tracheostomy care: A cross-sectional study\",\"authors\":\"Tongyao Wang ,&nbsp;Juan Mu ,&nbsp;Jialing Chen ,&nbsp;Chia-Chin Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The release of ChatGPT for general use in 2023 by OpenAI has significantly expanded the possible applications of generative artificial intelligence in the healthcare sector, particularly in terms of information retrieval by patients, medical and nursing students, and healthcare personnel.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 to clinical nurses on answering questions about tracheostomy care, as well as to determine whether using different prompts to pre-define the scope of the ChatGPT affects the accuracy of their responses.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Cross-sectional study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>The data collected from the ChatGPT was collected using the ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 using access provided by the University of Hong Kong. The data from the clinical nurses working in mainland China was collected using the Qualtrics survey program.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>No participants were needed for collecting the ChatGPT responses. A total of 272 clinical nurses, with 98.5 % of them working in tertiary care hospitals in mainland China, were recruited using a snowball sampling approach.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>We used 43 tracheostomy care-related questions in a multiple-choice format to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, and clinical nurses. ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 were both queried three times with the same questions by different prompts: no prompt, patient-friendly prompt, and act-as-nurse prompt. All responses were independently graded by two qualified otorhinolaryngology nurses on a 3-point accuracy scale (correct, partially correct, and incorrect). The Chi-squared test and Fisher exact test with post-hoc Bonferroni adjustment were used to assess the differences in performance between the three groups, as well as the differences in accuracy between different prompts.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>ChatGPT-4.0 showed significantly higher accuracy, with 64.3 % of responses rated as ‘correct’, compared to 60.5 % in ChatGPT-3.5 and 36.7 % in clinical nurses (<em>X <sup>2</sup></em> = 74.192, <em>p</em> &lt; .001). Except for the ‘care for the tracheostomy stoma and surrounding skin’ domain (<em>X<sup>2</sup></em> = 6.227, <em>p</em> = .156), scores from ChatGPT-3.5 and -4.0 were significantly better than nurses’ on domains related to airway humidification, cuff management, tracheostomy tube care, suction techniques, and management of complications. Overall, ChatGPT-4.0 consistently performed well in all domains, achieving over 50 % accuracy in each domain. Alterations to the prompt had no impact on the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 or -4.0.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>ChatGPT may serve as a complementary medical information tool for patients and physicians to improve knowledge in tracheostomy care.</p></div><div><h3>Tweetable abstract</h3><p>ChatGPT-4.0 can answer tracheostomy care questions better than most clinical nurses. There is no reason nurses should not be using it.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X24000080/pdfft?md5=deec54a55b2e4390941888b959a5b0f5&pid=1-s2.0-S2666142X24000080-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X24000080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X24000080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景OpenAI于2023年发布了可普遍使用的ChatGPT,这极大地扩展了生成式人工智能在医疗保健领域的应用,尤其是在患者、医护学生和医护人员的信息检索方面。比较 ChatGPT-3.5 和 ChatGPT-4.0 对临床护士回答气管造口术护理问题的表现,并确定使用不同的提示来预先定义 ChatGPT 的范围是否会影响其回答的准确性。在中国大陆工作的临床护士的数据使用 Qualtrics 调查程序收集。我们使用 43 个气管造口护理相关问题,以多项选择的形式评估 ChatGPT-3.5、ChatGPT-4.0 和临床护士的表现。ChatGPT-3.5 和 GPT-4.0 都通过不同的提示对相同的问题进行了三次查询:无提示、患者友好提示和扮演护士提示。所有回答均由两名合格的耳鼻喉科护士按照 3 级准确度(正确、部分正确和不正确)进行独立评分。结果ChatGPT-4.0的准确率明显更高,64.3%的回答被评为 "正确",而ChatGPT-3.5为60.5%,临床护士为36.7% (X 2 = 74.192, p <.001)。除 "气管造口和周围皮肤护理 "领域(X2 = 6.227,p = .156)外,ChatGPT-3.5 和 -4.0 在气道加湿、充气罩囊管理、气管造口管护理、吸痰技术和并发症处理等相关领域的得分均显著高于护士。总体而言,ChatGPT-4.0 在所有领域都表现出色,每个领域的准确率都超过了 50%。结论ChatGPT可作为辅助医疗信息工具,帮助患者和医生提高气管造口护理知识。护士没有理由不使用它。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing ChatGPT and clinical nurses’ performances on tracheostomy care: A cross-sectional study

Background

The release of ChatGPT for general use in 2023 by OpenAI has significantly expanded the possible applications of generative artificial intelligence in the healthcare sector, particularly in terms of information retrieval by patients, medical and nursing students, and healthcare personnel.

Objective

To compare the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 to clinical nurses on answering questions about tracheostomy care, as well as to determine whether using different prompts to pre-define the scope of the ChatGPT affects the accuracy of their responses.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

The data collected from the ChatGPT was collected using the ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 using access provided by the University of Hong Kong. The data from the clinical nurses working in mainland China was collected using the Qualtrics survey program.

Participants

No participants were needed for collecting the ChatGPT responses. A total of 272 clinical nurses, with 98.5 % of them working in tertiary care hospitals in mainland China, were recruited using a snowball sampling approach.

Method

We used 43 tracheostomy care-related questions in a multiple-choice format to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, and clinical nurses. ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 were both queried three times with the same questions by different prompts: no prompt, patient-friendly prompt, and act-as-nurse prompt. All responses were independently graded by two qualified otorhinolaryngology nurses on a 3-point accuracy scale (correct, partially correct, and incorrect). The Chi-squared test and Fisher exact test with post-hoc Bonferroni adjustment were used to assess the differences in performance between the three groups, as well as the differences in accuracy between different prompts.

Results

ChatGPT-4.0 showed significantly higher accuracy, with 64.3 % of responses rated as ‘correct’, compared to 60.5 % in ChatGPT-3.5 and 36.7 % in clinical nurses (X 2 = 74.192, p < .001). Except for the ‘care for the tracheostomy stoma and surrounding skin’ domain (X2 = 6.227, p = .156), scores from ChatGPT-3.5 and -4.0 were significantly better than nurses’ on domains related to airway humidification, cuff management, tracheostomy tube care, suction techniques, and management of complications. Overall, ChatGPT-4.0 consistently performed well in all domains, achieving over 50 % accuracy in each domain. Alterations to the prompt had no impact on the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 or -4.0.

Conclusion

ChatGPT may serve as a complementary medical information tool for patients and physicians to improve knowledge in tracheostomy care.

Tweetable abstract

ChatGPT-4.0 can answer tracheostomy care questions better than most clinical nurses. There is no reason nurses should not be using it.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
81 days
期刊最新文献
Nurse leaders’ recommendations for implementing LGBTQ+ inclusive practices in health systems: A qualitative descriptive study Nursing interventions in a newly established community health nursing system: A cross sectional survey Grit, academic resilience, and mindset of nursing students: A cross-sectional study Psychological safety in enhancing the competence of nurse educators among early career nursing faculty in Japan: A cross-sectional study How can family members of patients in the intensive care unit be supported? A systematic review of qualitative reviews, meta-synthesis, and novel recommendations for nursing care
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1